FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is it still classed as consent?
Is it still classed as consent?
Jump to: Newest in thread
If you start seeing someone and you ask them if they are single, and only want to sleep with them if they are single. You sleep with them and then find out they are married..... was that consentual (is that how you spell it?) sex or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference?" One can give you a life changing disease and/Or pregnancy. The other can't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, the physical act was consented to. However it was very very deceitful of him! " ^^ wss | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later " If you had stated ‘I want to sleep with you only if you are single, could it really be classed as giving consent? Because you stated verbally the only thing you gave consent to’ (we are all lawyer types, sorry haha) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference?" A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception," This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later If you had stated ‘I want to sleep with you only if you are single, could it really be classed as giving consent? Because you stated verbally the only thing you gave consent to’ (we are all lawyer types, sorry haha)" Still consent. If not, where would it end? how much would you have to disclose before having sex with someone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception, This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way" In that case nearly all sex is non consensual ....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference? A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature." Oh and to add I think you will find it isn't illegal to lie to a potential sexual partner about your relationship status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference? A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature. Oh and to add I think you will find it isn't illegal to lie to a potential sexual partner about your relationship status." It wasnt a debate about it being illegal it was a debate about it being consensual (thanks granny crumpet!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference?" Interesting question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could argue that you were lied or misled and that you had sex outside of your own moral parameters but you still consented to sex. " This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later If you had stated ‘I want to sleep with you only if you are single, could it really be classed as giving consent? Because you stated verbally the only thing you gave consent to’ (we are all lawyer types, sorry haha) Still consent. If not, where would it end? how much would you have to disclose before having sex with someone?" Home now and with nothing else to do figured I’d read up and there have been cases where the man has tricked or manipulated the woman verbally into bed and he has been convicted on non consensual sex grounds.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference? A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature." So by the same rationale, if the man got married *during* the meet with someone else.....? That is obviously daft (at the very least, logistically difficult) but outlines the difference very well. The removal of the condom is beyond reproach and justly deserves to result in punishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So where is the line drawn I wonder? No means no, fact . . A yes then later on the guy has police on his doorstep . . It's her word against his Dangerous ground I think, how can a guy legally prove the lady consented?" I think it is equally hard to prove consent / non consent for both sides I think In my scenario it would be easier possibly because you would have the woman asking say ‘ are you single, I only want to sleep with a married man’ and then his reply with potential manipulation, the evidence would be on a media format to prove it. But I don’t think this is the case with most, it seems to be mainly one word against another. I wouldn’t want to be on either side trying to prove the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference? A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature. Oh and to add I think you will find it isn't illegal to lie to a potential sexual partner about your relationship status. It wasnt a debate about it being illegal it was a debate about it being consensual " Okay then 
" Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception, This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference? A man was convicted in Germany after removing the condom half way through. As she consented to sex with a condom, he removed it so in doing so removed her consent. He now has a conviction for a serious sexual nature. Oh and to add I think you will find it isn't illegal to lie to a potential sexual partner about your relationship status. It wasnt a debate about it being illegal it was a debate about it being consensual Okay then
Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception,
This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way
"They wouldn’t bring in a law that made lying illegal, it is if they would classify it as non consensual under the law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later If you had stated ‘I want to sleep with you only if you are single, could it really be classed as giving consent? Because you stated verbally the only thing you gave consent to’ (we are all lawyer types, sorry haha) Still consent. If not, where would it end? how much would you have to disclose before having sex with someone? Home now and with nothing else to do figured I’d read up and there have been cases where the man has tricked or manipulated the woman verbally into bed and he has been convicted on non consensual sex grounds...." I see your point. If the only stipulation was that he wasn’t married then there potentially could be a case, but it would be tricky to prove the deception and to secure the conviction as sex was consented to. The question of course is how serious the deception was and in essence the burden of proof would be as to whether consent would really have relied on this one point of contention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later If you had stated ‘I want to sleep with you only if you are single, could it really be classed as giving consent? Because you stated verbally the only thing you gave consent to’ (we are all lawyer types, sorry haha) Still consent. If not, where would it end? how much would you have to disclose before having sex with someone? Home now and with nothing else to do figured I’d read up and there have been cases where the man has tricked or manipulated the woman verbally into bed and he has been convicted on non consensual sex grounds.... I see your point. If the only stipulation was that he wasn’t married then there potentially could be a case, but it would be tricky to prove the deception and to secure the conviction as sex was consented to. The question of course is how serious the deception was and in essence the burden of proof would be as to whether consent would really have relied on this one point of contention. " In English law lying about your relationship status doesn't negative consent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if I decide I only want to sleep with a man of age 35, and it turns out the man is 40 I haven’t consented? I find that a bit ridiculous, where does it end? How many more factors will come into play? It’s deception yes, but I don’t see it as in the same category as stealthing (taking the condom off) since that can come with serious health risks." Or if they only wanted to sleep with a blonde haired man, etc...whatever you picked though, whatever it was if you wouldnt have slept with them and you told them so without it, then they knew you didn’t consent to sex.... without those parameter beingnin place. Ie I only consent to sex with only if you are 35 haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception, This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way" I am not sure how you would stand about it but by the same.. could a woman who is only having bare sex because she thinks that her partner is only having sex with her .. be treated under the same part of the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if I decide I only want to sleep with a man of age 35, and it turns out the man is 40 I haven’t consented? I find that a bit ridiculous, where does it end? How many more factors will come into play? It’s deception yes, but I don’t see it as in the same category as stealthing (taking the condom off) since that can come with serious health risks." 
Is there a consent issue if a woman tells a man she's on the pill when she isn't? Does anyone know? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if I decide I only want to sleep with a man of age 35, and it turns out the man is 40 I haven’t consented? I find that a bit ridiculous, where does it end? How many more factors will come into play? It’s deception yes, but I don’t see it as in the same category as stealthing (taking the condom off) since that can come with serious health risks.
Is there a consent issue if a woman tells a man she's on the pill when she isn't? Does anyone know?"That’s a very good question! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, the physical act was consented to. However it was very very deceitful of him! " oooooooo I know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if I decide I only want to sleep with a man of age 35, and it turns out the man is 40 I haven’t consented? I find that a bit ridiculous, where does it end? How many more factors will come into play? It’s deception yes, but I don’t see it as in the same category as stealthing (taking the condom off) since that can come with serious health risks.
Is there a consent issue if a woman tells a man she's on the pill when she isn't? Does anyone know?
That’s a very good question!"I thought so too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sexual encounters involving deceit as a way to obtain “consent” may not in fact be consensual. .. 'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because a consent obtained by deception, This was our argument, I think you could stand up quite well to getting it classified as non consensual sex that way I am not sure how you would stand about it but by the same.. could a woman who is only having bare sex because she thinks that her partner is only having sex with her .. be treated under the same part of the law. " Another good question. I wonder if this might fall under 'stealthing' - the same as removing a condom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'sex-by-deception is always sex without consent, because consent was obtained by deception" I'd go along with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there a consent issue if a woman tells a man she's on the pill when she isn't? Does anyone know?" I'd consider that akin to the r word i.e something that's likely to devastate the person you fucked, and quite possibly ruin their entire life, and which the perpetrator did without regard to the victim or perhaps even maliciously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its consent by deception.... "This id be angry we have our rules too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex. "This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case "But that wasn’t what was asked. The question was if you later found out he was married or in a relationship. What your saying and comparing it too is completely different as is the condom anology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case "But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK law the aspect of consent given due to a false representation is very narrow indeed. R V Linaker was a case of a man who and sex with a prostitue and then reneged on the deal, and it was held in appeal that this was not non consensual just fraud. It is the consent to the act itself that is key not why the consent was given. " Yep this the act itself was consensual case closed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK law the aspect of consent given due to a false representation is very narrow indeed. R V Linaker was a case of a man who and sex with a prostitue and then reneged on the deal, and it was held in appeal that this was not non consensual just fraud. It is the consent to the act itself that is key not why the consent was given. " Interesting. Thanks for that. I guess it makes sense when you put it that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. " Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I only consented to it when she was wearing makeup, your honour...when she came out of the shower I knew then I had been violated, your honour. I was decieved your honour. "He said he could last hours and had special skills!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. " You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I only consented to it when she was wearing makeup, your honour...when she came out of the shower I knew then I had been violated, your honour. I was decieved your honour.
He said he could last hours and had special skills!!! "Yeah but you were just too hot baby | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo" It would never happen , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I only consented to it when she was wearing makeup, your honour...when she came out of the shower I knew then I had been violated, your honour. I was decieved your honour.
He said he could last hours and had special skills!!!
Yeah but you were just too hot baby "Nahhhh just too lazy, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo It would never happen , "It might if she could show it had caused her problems, whether it be trauma or social stigma. She should at least be allowed to clear her name and possibly get compensation. Something for Judge Judy perhaps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow! Scary thread! That a woman can even think she can 'withdraw consent' after the fact depending on what she learns. So you have sex with a guy and find out he's not a company director with a Ferrari. Do you claim you were forced to have sex?" I agree, it's scary that this is how people are starting to think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo It would never happen ,
It might if she could show it had caused her problems, whether it be trauma or social stigma. She should at least be allowed to clear her name and possibly get compensation. Something for Judge Judy perhaps "Compensation? Clear her name ? On what premises? If it is the situation we are talking about she has nothing to clear her name for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow! Scary thread! That a woman can even think she can 'withdraw consent' after the fact depending on what she learns. So you have sex with a guy and find out he's not a company director with a Ferrari. Do you claim you were forced to have sex? I agree, it's scary that this is how people are starting to think. " I agree, it’s madness. I feel it for the genuine sexual assault victims who have to go through reporting their attacker only for them not to be believed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo It would never happen ,
It might if she could show it had caused her problems, whether it be trauma or social stigma. She should at least be allowed to clear her name and possibly get compensation. Something for Judge Judy perhaps
Compensation? Clear her name ? On what premises? If it is the situation we are talking about she has nothing to clear her name for. " exactly!!
They had nsa consensual sexual contact. Yes it’s shite being lied to but unless you’re going to wait a while, get to know the guy more than it’s a risk you take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They had nsa consensual sexual contact. Yes it’s shite being lied to but unless you’re going to wait a while, get to know the guy more than it’s a risk you take." Yeah but why invoke personal responsibility when the boy who cried wolf had such a happy ending... As said above, nonsense like this will only distract from seeking justice for the real cases of nonconsent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse. "Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what of the slippery logical slope to any silly excuse for just not feeling it after the event - where does precedent start and end? Do you see the distinction between the risk of stealthing vs. marital status?" I have no idea! Haha if I came to a conclusions myself I wouldn’t have pondered and wondered what you guys all thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said it has been debated online - here we are - Have there been convictions of "r word by fraud" and what were the details?" I don’t know, google it, I’m off to make tea, I’ll head back for the update lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
"It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You said it has been debated online - here we are - Have there been convictions of "r word by fraud" and what were the details? I don’t know, google it, I’m off to make tea, I’ll head back for the update lol" Sounds like you are just spamming us with bad ideas, legal eagle ...but I'll have a dig. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One guy I met on a dating site not long ago told me he was single, he was very convincing. We met had a great date, then had another and on our third date we had mind blowing sex. It was very consensual and I enjoyed it a lot. Fast forward a week later I found out via his WIFE that he lied to me. Was it wrong? No I’d done nothing wrong it was him who lied and cheated not me! When confronted I told his wife exactly what happened and she thanked me for being honest. I felt humiliated and daft, was angry at him for lieng to me, but aside from all that the sex was consensual and the only thing he was guilty of is being a deceitful lieng cheat. And me a little naive maybe. " Yes I agree, been in the same situation myself and chose the same thing as you....... the scenario we used though was that say you had stated you were only willing to sleep with him if he was single, you asked and checked? You said that’s the only way you give consent to have sex, he said yes, but wasn’t’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One guy I met on a dating site not long ago told me he was single, he was very convincing. We met had a great date, then had another and on our third date we had mind blowing sex. It was very consensual and I enjoyed it a lot. Fast forward a week later I found out via his WIFE that he lied to me. Was it wrong? No I’d done nothing wrong it was him who lied and cheated not me! When confronted I told his wife exactly what happened and she thanked me for being honest. I felt humiliated and daft, was angry at him for lieng to me, but aside from all that the sex was consensual and the only thing he was guilty of is being a deceitful lieng cheat. And me a little naive maybe. Yes I agree, been in the same situation myself and chose the same thing as you....... the scenario we used though was that say you had stated you were only willing to sleep with him if he was single, you asked and checked? You said that’s the only way you give consent to have sex, he said yes, but wasn’t’ " I did say that! I made it very clear I don’t like liars or cheats. So the onus was on him then as he knew I wouldn’t even date him if I thought he was attached let alone have sex! He choose to lie and continue to manipulate me, and I fell for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship! "A lawyer speaks. Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim. Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough. What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on. "I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks kinky... Wikipedia gives us this bizarre case but there was a case from Israel that was about religious and marital status..but further enquiry showed it to be a dressed up plea bargain to maintain victim anonymity. ******** On March 30, 1984, Daniel Kayton Boro called a Holiday Inn in South San Francisco. Mariana De Bella was a hotel clerk who answered the phone that morning. Boro told De Bella that he was "Dr. Stevens" and that he worked at Peninsula Hospital. Boro (pretending to be "Dr. Stevens") said that he had the results of her blood test and that she had contracted a dangerous, extremely infectious and possibly deadly disease from using public toilets. Boro went on to tell her that she could be sued for spreading the disease and that she had only two options for treatment. The first option he told her about was an extremely painful surgical procedure (which he described in graphic and gory detail) that would cost $9,000 and require a six week hospital stay that would not be covered by insurance. The second option, Boro said, was to have sexual intercourse with an anonymous "donor" who would administer a vaccine through sexual intercourse with her. The clerk agreed to the sexual intercourse and arranged to pay $1000 for it, believing it was the only choice she had. Boro instructed her to check into a hotel room and call him when she was there. Boro then arrived at her room as the "donor." He told her to relax and then had sex with De Bella. Boro used no physical force and his victim knowingly allowed him to have sex with her because she believed (falsely) that her life was threatened if she did not receive this "treatment." " But that’s manipulating and completely different, borderline abuse through scaremongering , completely different scenario | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks kinky... Wikipedia gives us this bizarre case but there was a case from Israel that was about religious and marital status..but further enquiry showed it to be a dressed up plea bargain to maintain victim anonymity. ******** On March 30, 1984, Daniel Kayton Boro called a Holiday Inn in South San Francisco. Mariana De Bella was a hotel clerk who answered the phone that morning. Boro told De Bella that he was "Dr. Stevens" and that he worked at Peninsula Hospital. Boro (pretending to be "Dr. Stevens") said that he had the results of her blood test and that she had contracted a dangerous, extremely infectious and possibly deadly disease from using public toilets. Boro went on to tell her that she could be sued for spreading the disease and that she had only two options for treatment. The first option he told her about was an extremely painful surgical procedure (which he described in graphic and gory detail) that would cost $9,000 and require a six week hospital stay that would not be covered by insurance. The second option, Boro said, was to have sexual intercourse with an anonymous "donor" who would administer a vaccine through sexual intercourse with her. The clerk agreed to the sexual intercourse and arranged to pay $1000 for it, believing it was the only choice she had. Boro instructed her to check into a hotel room and call him when she was there. Boro then arrived at her room as the "donor." He told her to relax and then had sex with De Bella. Boro used no physical force and his victim knowingly allowed him to have sex with her because she believed (falsely) that her life was threatened if she did not receive this "treatment." " I was just reading some bizarre cases too, and others that just made me feel sick.... Kinky I couldn’t see the ammendment that was due to come out or when it comes out on the law pages? When does it come out? I did find a paper from Yale - Rubenfeld, something about deception, that I might read tomorrow lol way too late tonight! From my googling this time it looks like some states either are going to make the jump or already have to include it...(gave up reading)..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks kinky... Wikipedia gives us this bizarre case but there was a case from Israel that was about religious and marital status..but further enquiry showed it to be a dressed up plea bargain to maintain victim anonymity. ******** On March 30, 1984, Daniel Kayton Boro called a Holiday Inn in South San Francisco. Mariana De Bella was a hotel clerk who answered the phone that morning. Boro told De Bella that he was "Dr. Stevens" and that he worked at Peninsula Hospital. Boro (pretending to be "Dr. Stevens") said that he had the results of her blood test and that she had contracted a dangerous, extremely infectious and possibly deadly disease from using public toilets. Boro went on to tell her that she could be sued for spreading the disease and that she had only two options for treatment. The first option he told her about was an extremely painful surgical procedure (which he described in graphic and gory detail) that would cost $9,000 and require a six week hospital stay that would not be covered by insurance. The second option, Boro said, was to have sexual intercourse with an anonymous "donor" who would administer a vaccine through sexual intercourse with her. The clerk agreed to the sexual intercourse and arranged to pay $1000 for it, believing it was the only choice she had. Boro instructed her to check into a hotel room and call him when she was there. Boro then arrived at her room as the "donor." He told her to relax and then had sex with De Bella. Boro used no physical force and his victim knowingly allowed him to have sex with her because she believed (falsely) that her life was threatened if she did not receive this "treatment." I was just reading some bizarre cases too, and others that just made me feel sick.... Kinky I couldn’t see the ammendment that was due to come out or when it comes out on the law pages? When does it come out? I did find a paper from Yale - Rubenfeld, something about deception, that I might read tomorrow lol way too late tonight! From my googling this time it looks like some states either are going to make the jump or already have to include it...(gave up reading)....." I am not sure what amendment you are referring to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
R culture rhetoric is dying and needs a shot in the arm
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks kinky... Wikipedia gives us this bizarre case but there was a case from Israel that was about religious and marital status..but further enquiry showed it to be a dressed up plea bargain to maintain victim anonymity. ******** On March 30, 1984, Daniel Kayton Boro called a Holiday Inn in South San Francisco. Mariana De Bella was a hotel clerk who answered the phone that morning. Boro told De Bella that he was "Dr. Stevens" and that he worked at Peninsula Hospital. Boro (pretending to be "Dr. Stevens") said that he had the results of her blood test and that she had contracted a dangerous, extremely infectious and possibly deadly disease from using public toilets. Boro went on to tell her that she could be sued for spreading the disease and that she had only two options for treatment. The first option he told her about was an extremely painful surgical procedure (which he described in graphic and gory detail) that would cost $9,000 and require a six week hospital stay that would not be covered by insurance. The second option, Boro said, was to have sexual intercourse with an anonymous "donor" who would administer a vaccine through sexual intercourse with her. The clerk agreed to the sexual intercourse and arranged to pay $1000 for it, believing it was the only choice she had. Boro instructed her to check into a hotel room and call him when she was there. Boro then arrived at her room as the "donor." He told her to relax and then had sex with De Bella. Boro used no physical force and his victim knowingly allowed him to have sex with her because she believed (falsely) that her life was threatened if she did not receive this "treatment." I was just reading some bizarre cases too, and others that just made me feel sick.... Kinky I couldn’t see the ammendment that was due to come out or when it comes out on the law pages? When does it come out? I did find a paper from Yale - Rubenfeld, something about deception, that I might read tomorrow lol way too late tonight! From my googling this time it looks like some states either are going to make the jump or already have to include it...(gave up reading)..... I am not sure what amendment you are referring to. " I was reading on my phone so it was destroying my eyes on legislation.gov sexual offences act I thought they were amending it to include stealthing but I couldn’t see anything?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The made up one she's trolling us with in an effort to seed such a half baked idea into more gullible minds.
R culture rhetoric is dying and needs a shot in the arm
"That’s a bit unnecessary isn’t it? It has nothing to do with putting ideas into people heads it was to see what people thought the same law is the one kinky is talking about, I went and read it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a massive leap from deception on grounds of the wrong gender or sibking or condom removal to the "I thought you were single case". I'm sure most trained legal minds can see that a mile off. Your "research" isn't exactly convincing...the mind plays tricks and thinks it saw what it wants to see half the time and it sounds like that's what happened with your reading on the subject Come back when you know your stuff. " The OP was asking for opinions on a debate not an argument to attempt to win? Is it that you don’t value others opinions or just that you are touchy about this subject? And seem to want to go into attack? Or have you just had too much to drink? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable. "Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly". Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful. It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha "Again your talking about a completely different situation that’s non comparable to the OP, your bringing in other parameters which are about religion or ethics. The OP was plain and simple about if a man lied about being married | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha "Haha I love this ‘family morals monthly’! I think you have a fair point, in those kind of cases she couldn’t just shrug her shoulders like me and the other lady said we did, that would be life destroying (for her) Whilst I was spamming and reading the law ***cough, rolling my eyes, cough*** I was surprised how little there is in there about consent, and how little there is in general, i just assumed it would be massive. There is a section on voyeurism that I might need to read though, before I get arrested  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. You can't take consent back. If you consented at the time, it will always be consent. No matter what you find out later " Not in the case where undercover police were pretending to be who they weren't (and also went on to impregnate women). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha
Again your talking about a completely different situation that’s non comparable to the OP, your bringing in other parameters which are about religion or ethics. The OP was plain and simple about if a man lied about being married "I'm explaining that I think neither consent nor fraud alone are the issue here. It would all come down to the question of whether the fraud had led to serious harm to the victim of that fraud. You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm 
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha
Again your talking about a completely different situation that’s non comparable to the OP, your bringing in other parameters which are about religion or ethics. The OP was plain and simple about if a man lied about being married
I'm explaining that I think neither consent nor fraud alone are the issue here. It would all come down to the question of whether the fraud had led to serious harm to the victim of that fraud.
You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer "And what about emotional/mental harm? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha
Again your talking about a completely different situation that’s non comparable to the OP, your bringing in other parameters which are about religion or ethics. The OP was plain and simple about if a man lied about being married
I'm explaining that I think neither consent nor fraud alone are the issue here. It would all come down to the question of whether the fraud had led to serious harm to the victim of that fraud.
You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer "You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But the physical act of intercourse was consensual at that time. Anyone can lie, cheat but that surely doesn’t mean that they could later be charged with unconsensual sex.
This argument doesn't stack up. Let's say a very vanilla religiously devout woman was told by her husband of long standing that he'd like to fuck her blindfolded. She consented. Then she was fucked. Except when she took the blindfold off at the end it was another man who fucked her with her husband standing watching. That's the r word right there
Sex by deception isn't consensual sex. Having said that, however, it's clear that there's a grey line somewhere as by the same argument you could say consent was based on them being a natural blonde. But I think if there is damage involved, as there would be in the above example or if a woman had suffered moral turmoil from having been conned into fucking a married man... I think they'd have a case
But it was consensual, it wasn’t forced in any way! Yes ok morally he/she lied about personal details but that doesn’t mean sex was not consensual at time of intercourse.
Thanks for all of your opinions, I Just got back in
I find it really interesting what everyone thinks, we all practice law but none of us this type so don’t have any experience of these type of court cases. Some bits I noticed....
Legally....just because something isn’t forced it doesn’t mean it is consensual
If it was just the physical act then stealthing wouldnt hold up in court and it does....
If you could show coercion etc that would also stand up and has...
There is a name for it and it is debated quite a lot as google tells me, go figure! it hadn’t really crossed my mind before today. They call it the ‘r word by fraud’ especially when like we said the woman or other party had stated exactly what they were willing to give consent to
It may have been googled or debated but I challenge anyone to find a case that was prosecuted for lieng about being married or in a relationship!
A lawyer speaks.
Historically, the only deception that negatived content was where there was deception as to the nature of the act (being told it's a breathing exercise for example., that was an actual case) or impersonating someone known to the victim.
Recently that's been ex extended somewhat, so now deception as to gender or deception as to condom use may well be enough.
What never negatives consent is deception ad to one's social position - wealth, marital status and so on.
I agree with this. Gender, condom or similar. But to compare it to someone who’s lied about thier relationship is not comparable.
Again I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement. If someone was a devout follower of a religion and her whole social circle and job was related to that and her religion decreed that it was a sin punishable by hell to sleep with another woman's man then she could be deeply traumatised by the lying, she may be heavily stigmatised by it if word got out and possibly even lose her job if it was, for example, being lead editor of "Family Morals Monthly".
Of course I'm making all this stuff up but surely the point is that the man could be tried for fraud but most cases would be thrown out unless it could be demonstrated that his fraud had led to major negative repercussions to the woman. That issue (trauma) elevates the fraud from harmless to harmful.
It's an interesting thread and I'm open to changing my mind as I learn and think more... as I already have haha
Again your talking about a completely different situation that’s non comparable to the OP, your bringing in other parameters which are about religion or ethics. The OP was plain and simple about if a man lied about being married
I'm explaining that I think neither consent nor fraud alone are the issue here. It would all come down to the question of whether the fraud had led to serious harm to the victim of that fraud.
You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer "I just think if the sex was consensual then how can you turn around and then say different (in a general setting not bringing in gender or religion or similar) you were lied to, it hurts yes but pull your pants up and put it down to experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another."Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm? Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another.
Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm?
Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back? "Not really compatible, I can see what your saying but if you ask for a peanut and they give you a cashew then basically you either check and inspect the nut and go ahead and eat it ! Or you refuse. But if they knowingly add it into food pretending that it’s a peanut knowingly it’s not and you could DIE, then this is different. BUT!! We’re not talking about live or die situations, it’s not the same comparisons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just think if the sex was consensual then how can you turn around and then say different (in a general setting not bringing in gender or religion or similar) you were lied to, it hurts yes but pull your pants up and put it down to experience " The poster who rubbished the consent argument earlier stated that you cannot withdraw consent after the act. So the issue of consent is dead on this thread. But the same poster highlighted that the act was not non-consensual... it was fraud. This is what I'm exploring now; whether there may be circumstances in which the fraud causes such trauma that it can be pursued in court. If it was merely a case, like you've suggested, of yes it hurts but get over it... then it would be chucked out. But who's to say that's always going to be the case with a single woman? It's perhaps unlikely, but there could be much more trauma that comes from it for her, particularly if she's the editor of "Family Morals Monthly" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another.
Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm?
Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back?
Not really compatible, I can see what your saying but if you ask for a peanut and they give you a cashew then basically you either check and inspect the nut and go ahead and eat it ! Or you refuse. But if they knowingly add it into food pretending that it’s a peanut knowingly it’s not and you could DIE, then this is different. BUT!! We’re not talking about live or die situations, it’s not the same comparisons "So basically a man (peanut ) pretending to be a cashew , I don’t like peanuts, but he’s saying he’s a cashew. I’ll taste him, omg I have a bad reaction and feel shitty as he told me he was a peanut. Situation (B) a man (peanut) pretends to be a cashew knowing I have a severe allergic reaction to peanuts but doesn’t care, he gives me his said nut, I have a life changing condition or die!!! Crap anology but do you see what I mean ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another.
Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm?
Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back?
Not really compatible, I can see what your saying but if you ask for a peanut and they give you a cashew then basically you either check and inspect the nut and go ahead and eat it ! Or you refuse. But if they knowingly add it into food pretending that it’s a peanut knowingly it’s not and you could DIE, then this is different. BUT!! We’re not talking about live or die situations, it’s not the same comparisons
So basically a man (peanut ) pretending to be a cashew , I don’t like peanuts, but he’s saying he’s a cashew. I’ll taste him, omg I have a bad reaction and feel shitty as he told me he was a peanut.
Situation (B) a man (peanut) pretends to be a cashew knowing I have a severe allergic reaction to peanuts but doesn’t care, he gives me his said nut, I have a life changing condition or die!!!
Crap anology but do you see what I mean ?"The person in the second situation was liable as he knowingly knew I could die (at worst) but went ahead anyway. But in situation A the person was at worst just being deceitful for his own needs, not wanting to cause physical or mental distress | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another.
Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm?
Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back?
Not really compatible, I can see what your saying but if you ask for a peanut and they give you a cashew then basically you either check and inspect the nut and go ahead and eat it ! Or you refuse. But if they knowingly add it into food pretending that it’s a peanut knowingly it’s not and you could DIE, then this is different. BUT!! We’re not talking about live or die situations, it’s not the same comparisons
So basically a man (peanut ) pretending to be a cashew , I don’t like peanuts, but he’s saying he’s a cashew. I’ll taste him, omg I have a bad reaction and feel shitty as he told me he was a peanut.
Situation (B) a man (peanut) pretends to be a cashew knowing I have a severe allergic reaction to peanuts but doesn’t care, he gives me his said nut, I have a life changing condition or die!!!
Crap anology but do you see what I mean ?
The person in the second situation was liable as he knowingly knew I could die (at worst) but went ahead anyway. But in situation A the person was at worst just being deceitful for his own needs, not wanting to cause physical or mental distress "I get what you're trying to say. It's what I meant by asking if you'd only have a case if you could show "intent to harm". I think kinky will probably say that in the case of a restaurant or food product you wouldn't need to show "intent to harm" to sue them as they have a duty of care to you. With a cheating man, however, you may need to show "intent to harm" as there's no such duty of care. God knows? But it's a curious thread. We don't get many legal ones on Fab so it's been very thought provoking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't just go and sue someone for giving you a nut and telling you it was a cashew. But you can if it was a peanut and you have an allergy. That's what I'm trying to get at. Of course the issue of intent to harm might put the kibosh on that though. Hmmm
Haha oh well. You can tell I'm no lawyer
You're thinking about a claim in negligence. That all depends on whether one has a duty of care towards the other person. . It's highly unlikely a court would impose a duty of care on one adult having sex with another.
Can we reduce this down to the peanut because it's the same thing isn't it. Someone offers you a cashew and you take it. It's a harmless lie. But if you have a peanut allergy and it sends you to hospital... the issue is can you sue that person for their harmless little lie then? Or do you have to show intent to harm?
Is this making sense or have I just watched too many crappy Quincy episodes back to back? "If the person giving the nut has no idea about the allergy and no reason why he should know about it there's no liability. If he does know about the allergy and intends to harm the person, that's probably Abh at least and both civil and criminal liability would lie. If the person should know about the allergy but doesn't (perhaps a parent who forgot the doctor told them about the allergy), then there's probably a claim in negligence. None of this, however, applies to someone lying to get sex except in the very limited situations I've already mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Goodness, what a long but thoroughly interesting read! I'm somewhat surprised that nobody picked up on the fact that the terms of consent were discussed and they were that he was single... Show me a man,or woman for that matter, who fancys having sex with 'her' that wouldn't just go along with whatever she said... It is just no strings fun afternoon, they are not asking to get into an affair or relationship, just a shag." But reading the op it states seeing someone. I would take that as with the view of starting a relationship. The op does not say a nsa shag | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Same if payment is agreed prior to intercourse and then the money is with held. " That case amounted to fraud not r. See how we should we concerned about Chinese whispers when it comes to serious matters ........and spamming fake lawyers with revenge motives It's an interesting philosophical talking point but a dangerous notion for common sense and the fabric of society. Also r is a very serious matter and it's definition shouldn't be diluted in this way. Do we want to retain liberal values governed by common sense or do we want to usher in totalitarian measures to cover any perceived slight? To the family morals analogy....If I go to cinema to watch a new Hollywood blockbuster on the rave reviews I'm hearing but see two men kiss on screen can I sue for fraud as my faith tells me it's abhorrent and now I'm the talk of the town for having gone to see such shocking content? It was rated 18+ and yes I consented to adult content in good faith but I'm not one of those! A silly example.. but where do you stop with that kind of thinking?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Same if payment is agreed prior to intercourse and then the money is with held. That case amounted to fraud not r. " It's not fraud as there is no offence of defrauding a prostitute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Same if payment is agreed prior to intercourse and then the money is with held. That case amounted to fraud not r. See how we should we concerned about Chinese whispers when it comes to serious matters ........and spamming fake lawyers with revenge motives It's an interesting philosophical talking point but a dangerous notion for common sense and the fabric of society. Also r is a very serious matter and it's definition shouldn't be diluted in this way. Do we want to retain liberal values governed by common sense or do we want to usher in totalitarian measures to cover any perceived slight? To the family morals analogy....If I go to cinema to watch a new Hollywood blockbuster on the rave reviews I'm hearing but see two men kiss on screen can I sue for fraud as my faith tells me it's abhorrent and now I'm the talk of the town for having gone to see such shocking content? It was rated 18+ and yes I consented to adult content in good faith but I'm not one of those! A silly example.. but where do you stop with that kind of thinking?! " Great debate guys, this is kind of where we got to,Ive learnt quite a lot, especially how little there is in the law about consent, love the peanut comparison! As for the accusations of spamming continually and revenge motives, it would actually seem it is you trolling me? Everyone else seems to have had a normal debate without trying to insinuate I want revenge. It doesnt show you in the best light as being a mature male, maybe if you can’t have a debate with adults you should go back to reading peter rabbit, you know....where his mother said ‘if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all!’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keeping it fairly simple. If you lie to get someone to have sex with you, it can amount to r. So if a person agrees to sex on the condition that a condom is used and then half way through the male slips off the condom without telling the other party it is classed as r. Same if payment is agreed prior to intercourse and then the money is with held. There are plenty of other examples. " You're wrong about the payment example. In English law that's not r ape. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone fibs about their age by a few months? Is someone wears colour changing contacts but you habitually only go for those with sultry brown eyes? It's a good rhetorical point...but common sense has to come into play or virtual anything could be dreamed up as a post hoc consent removal device. Yep! And this is also why the OP discussion would never even get to court in the first place. I’ve had men lie to me many times, I enjoyed the sex albeit I wouldn’t of even met them if I knew they were attached but that’s just something beyond our control, I trusted him to be honest, he lied. You're right that the op wouldn't have a case for non consensual sex. But she could still take him to court for fraud imo It would never happen ,
It might if she could show it had caused her problems, whether it be trauma or social stigma. She should at least be allowed to clear her name and possibly get compensation. Something for Judge Judy perhaps "No it couldn’t because the crime of fraud has a defined meaning which is linked to deceitful acts for financial gains | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you start seeing someone and you ask them if they are single, and only want to sleep with them if they are single. You sleep with them and then find out they are married." Yes it is consensual to the act... however things that flow from it might be actionable... eg getting married, obtaining money, having children, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To reiterate. The basic principle in English law is that if you consent to sex it's not ra pe even if your consent has been obtained by deception and you wouldn't have consented if you hadn't been deceived. There are two exceptions to this principle 1. If you deceive someone by saying you are someone known to them and they consent to having sex believing you to be that person. 2. If you deceive someone as to the nature of the act. This is quite a complicated area as it involves philosophical discussions as to what the essential nature of the sex act is. Recently, theres Bern a tendency to widen the definition. So, for example, not wearing a condom when this was agreed as been held to be deception as to the nature of the act, as has pretending you are a man when you are a woman. What will never be ra pe are deceptions not involving the sexual act per se. So pretending to be rich, lying about your age and so on won't vitiate consent. " I have been trying to say this above but you put is much better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes of course it was. " ???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes of course it was. ????" Why the question marks? I wa answering the OP's question that they asked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes of course it was. ???? Why the question marks? I wa answering the OP's question that they asked." And ignoring all the actual legal expertise that followed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A mature debate is one where you hold you ground. I think even thinking this way is extremely dangerous and that's why I'm criticizing you. Unlike _inkylondonpair you haven't really shown your jobs in this area. Where are these amendments? Want to take on any of the points I made? " Ok let’s go through it then as you don’t seem to want to let it go haha I maybe would if I understood you... You want me to hold my ground on a debate? And what opinion is it you seem to think I have? You seem to have assumed I have picked a side on this debate, because if I wanted to hold ground I would need to have come to my own conclusion You think it is dangerous to think and ponder and want to criticise me for it? Well I don’t and never will think it is dangerous to think or for anyone else to think, I’m more shocked by people who try to silence others I haven’t shown my chops? Arent these cuts of meat? I have no idea what you are going on about The amendments: the ones that have been widely publicised on the news in relation to stealthing, as I stated In multiple messages above, i have no experience with r ape in legal terms, so I don’t know where they are and I was asking if it was a change in legislation or precedent Is there any other nonsense you would like to spout that you seem to think is your right to hold other people accountable for? Out of all the people that gave an opinion on this subject, you were the only one that felt the need to attack my career, my livelyhood and brought something personal into a.....debate....of a hypothetical situation....you have got to surely see this says a lot about you now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes of course it was. ???? Why the question marks? I wa answering the OP's question that they asked. And ignoring all the actual legal expertise that followed " Sorry seems you are agreeing it was consentual...I presumed the question was worded the other way round. Sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A mature debate is one where you hold you ground. I think even thinking this way is extremely dangerous and that's why I'm criticizing you. Unlike _inkylondonpair you haven't really shown your jobs in this area. Where are these amendments? Want to take on any of the points I made? Ok let’s go through it then as you don’t seem to want to let it go haha I maybe would if I understood you... You want me to hold my ground on a debate? And what opinion is it you seem to think I have? You seem to have assumed I have picked a side on this debate, because if I wanted to hold ground I would need to have come to my own conclusion You think it is dangerous to think and ponder and want to criticise me for it? Well I don’t and never will think it is dangerous to think or for anyone else to think, I’m more shocked by people who try to silence others I haven’t shown my chops? Arent these cuts of meat? I have no idea what you are going on about The amendments: the ones that have been widely publicised on the news in relation to stealthing, as I stated In multiple messages above, i have no experience with r ape in legal terms, so I don’t know where they are and I was asking if it was a change in legislation or precedent Is there any other nonsense you would like to spout that you seem to think is your right to hold other people accountable for? Out of all the people that gave an opinion on this subject, you were the only one that felt the need to attack my career, my livelyhood and brought something personal into a.....debate....of a hypothetical situation....you have got to surely see this says a lot about you now " You also were going out of your way to conflate having an affair with stealthing of condom use, which with the greatest of respect seems to indicate that you easily mix up legal principles. Your persistence on the matter with regard to some legislation you think you saw but weren't able to back up is why I found your motives questionable. The old phrase about a woman scorned sprung to mind. I'll stand my ground in thinking that it's an abhorrent line of thought that dilutes the meaning of r and insults genuine victims. However, maybe we are both wrong about each other. At least one of us is 
Namaste | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Talking to some girlfriends and having a debate so I thought I’d ask you lot...
If you start seeing someone and you ask them if they are single, and only want to sleep with them if they are single. You sleep with them and then find out they are married..... was that consentual (is that how you spell it?) sex or not? "yes xxxxxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You think it is dangerous to think and ponder and want to criticise me for it? Well I don’t and never will think it is dangerous to think or for anyone else to think, I’m more shocked by people who try to silence others " You can think all you want just as I'm free to lambaste terrible ideas. I'm not silencing you but goading you to backup your point and then think it through. In hindsight the fine intellectuals behind scientific rationalisation of humanity by race and thus Nazism or the Marxism that led to Gulags and famine should have been shot down too - some ideas are toxic when brought into play - it's that simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You think it is dangerous to think and ponder and want to criticise me for it? Well I don’t and never will think it is dangerous to think or for anyone else to think, I’m more shocked by people who try to silence others You can think all you want just as I'm free to lambaste terrible ideas. I'm not silencing you but goading you to backup your point and then think it through. In hindsight the fine intellectuals behind scientific rationalisation of humanity by race and thus Nazism or the Marxism that led to Gulags and famine should have been shot down too - some ideas are toxic when brought into play - it's that simple. " You thought goading me by calling me a spamming fake lawyer with revenge motives was acceptable in a relaxed forum on fab?? And now want to try and defend your actions by comparing it to nazism and the need to shoot me down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8 This is a really good video about consent, I've worked with teenagers who have been victims of sexual exploitation and consent is always a subject that so many people don't quite understand, It's apparent that consent is contextual. It’s about making someone say yes to something they would otherwise say no to. You could compare it to grooming - just telling someone things that are manipulating them to make a decision they wouldn’t otherwise make. Sex by deception can be really dangerous, especially for the person that lied, but the actual act was consensual, the degree of deception could be argued, morally it's wrong, but legally it's not xGx " I hadn’t thought about grooming, that’s an interesting new point.... How do you mean it is dangerous for the person that lied? I didn’t read the children’s sections in the law it made me feel too sick | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was our debate... When you agree to have sex with a condom on, and they take it off, without your knowledge you didn’t consent to that and wouldn’t have consented, so no longer consent....made illegal now I believe......stealthing Is that Same as..... If you agree to have sex with a single man, they are married, without your knowledge, you did t consent to sleeping with a married man and wouldn’t have consented? So what’s the difference?" Because the stealth thing has been used to spread aids. Or cause pregnancy when they specifically said no. Him not telling you he’s married, just means he’s a player. An you should of maybe waited a bit longer. It only bruises an ego or morals. It’s easier to get over. Hope that all makes sense.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8 This is a really good video about consent, I've worked with teenagers who have been victims of sexual exploitation and consent is always a subject that so many people don't quite understand, It's apparent that consent is contextual. It’s about making someone say yes to something they would otherwise say no to. You could compare it to grooming - just telling someone things that are manipulating them to make a decision they wouldn’t otherwise make. Sex by deception can be really dangerous, especially for the person that lied, but the actual act was consensual, the degree of deception could be argued, morally it's wrong, but legally it's not xGx I hadn’t thought about grooming, that’s an interesting new point.... How do you mean it is dangerous for the person that lied? I didn’t read the children’s sections in the law it made me feel too sick" Because the person that lied is classed as the perpetrator and therefore the one that incited sexual contact under false pretence, if you have to trick someone into having sex with you, you become a perpetrator,it really is murky waters my friend. In most negotiations in life, if one party is found to be guilty of deception, any agreement between the two of them is then invalid. The consent no longer exists. So, why shouldn’t that apply to sexual transactions? Again, it's the level of deceit that then becomes the issue. Deception is serious, but what if a man tells a woman he loves her to get her into bed but doesn’t mean it? What if he pretends he’s a billionaire but is actually unemployed? You could say that about face cream that promises to make you beautiful. That’s deception but it’s the degree of deception? It’s about what degree you go to. I think it would be dangerous ground. It’s not nice but where do you draw the line on the level of deceit? This has been a really interesting thread x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8 This is a really good video about consent, I've worked with teenagers who have been victims of sexual exploitation and consent is always a subject that so many people don't quite understand, It's apparent that consent is contextual. It’s about making someone say yes to something they would otherwise say no to. You could compare it to grooming - just telling someone things that are manipulating them to make a decision they wouldn’t otherwise make. Sex by deception can be really dangerous, especially for the person that lied, but the actual act was consensual, the degree of deception could be argued, morally it's wrong, but legally it's not xGx I hadn’t thought about grooming, that’s an interesting new point.... How do you mean it is dangerous for the person that lied? I didn’t read the children’s sections in the law it made me feel too sick" Did you watch the video? X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x" You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if you are in a vanilla marriage, you've said all your wedding vows - forsaking all others etc Your partner has an extra marital affair, not only that it's a bareback sexual relationship. The sex continues in the marital home, the unknowing partner without question concents to bareback sex. Had the partner known of the affair they would not have concented to sex and especially not bareback due to the health risk. The health risk is the same as stealthing, the concent for the sex given is with deception. This seems like a potentially common scenario and if the r word could be claimed it would be happening frequently along with divorce proceedings " This is a more interesting argument. Again, it dilutes the r word but could be a charge in itself? The cheater would need prior knowledge of the std status of the third party? What if they were misled by the third party on that? Where does it end? Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the miracle wrinkle cream? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You thought goading me by calling me a spamming fake lawyer with revenge motives was acceptable in a relaxed forum on fab?? "I also made a series of arguments that you failed to address...don't be so faux sensitive if you want to be free to think about and debate such things honestly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You thought goading me by calling me a spamming fake lawyer with revenge motives was acceptable in a relaxed forum on fab??
I also made a series of arguments that you failed to address...don't be so faux sensitive if you want to be free to think about and debate such things honestly.
"Get a room have a cuddle and mass debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just think if the sex was consensual then how can you turn around and then say different (in a general setting not bringing in gender or religion or similar) you were lied to, it hurts yes but pull your pants up and put it down to experience The poster who rubbished the consent argument earlier stated that you cannot withdraw consent after the act. So the issue of consent is dead on this thread. But the same poster highlighted that the act was not non-consensual... it was fraud. This is what I'm exploring now; whether there may be circumstances in which the fraud causes such trauma that it can be pursued in court. If it was merely a case, like you've suggested, of yes it hurts but get over it... then it would be chucked out. But who's to say that's always going to be the case with a single woman? It's perhaps unlikely, but there could be much more trauma that comes from it for her, particularly if she's the editor of "Family Morals Monthly" "I've been thinking about this and the best I can come up with is that the editor of Family Morals Monthly should only be having sex with a husband of her own if she's really that into that line of thinking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You thought goading me by calling me a spamming fake lawyer with revenge motives was acceptable in a relaxed forum on fab??
I also made a series of arguments that you failed to address...don't be so faux sensitive if you want to be free to think about and debate such things honestly.
Get a room have a cuddle and mass debate "Hot angry sex maybe...but I'd worry about the legal ramifications | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You thought goading me by calling me a spamming fake lawyer with revenge motives was acceptable in a relaxed forum on fab??
I also made a series of arguments that you failed to address...don't be so faux sensitive if you want to be free to think about and debate such things honestly.
Get a room have a cuddle and mass debate
Hot angry sex maybe...but I'd worry about the legal ramifications "oooooooo I know but he'd be able to talk you through them don't ask for a letter it'll cost you £200 ha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. " When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side." I've got it in my head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side.I've got it in my head " You're not the one who seems to have a personal issue with the OP! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side.I've got it in my head You're not the one who seems to have a personal issue with the OP!" I don't have a personal issue with anyone but I'm happy to poke fun at terrible ideas and indirectly those who peddle them. After all I did have too much to drink... allegedly
If someone is that sensitive to scrutiny then they shouldn't engage with a forum.
From my reading of the thread, I don't believe the OP to be a neutral observer either.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side.I've got it in my head You're not the one who seems to have a personal issue with the OP!" but do they have a personal issue it's just words, would these words come out the same in person, are these words being misinterpreted? Does it at the end of the day matter what's done is done it can't be changed, it's a bit like driving down the road in your brand new highly polished car and an 80 year old blue rinser driving a morris minor soft top hesitating at a junction and putting a dent in said pristine car the dents in it, you can't take it back you could get very angry with the blue rinser who has 63 years of driving experience to her name but to what end they'll be back on the road the next day driving at 25 mph........ Speed kills ya know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keeping it fairly simple. If you lie to get someone to have sex with you, it can amount to r. So if a person agrees to sex on the condition that a condom is used and then half way through the male slips off the condom without telling the other party it is classed as r. Same if payment is agreed prior to intercourse and then the money is with held. There are plenty of other examples. You're wrong about the payment example. In English law that's not r ape. " As you say, I was wrong about the payment part. I remember being given an example a few years a go from a trusted source and it now having researched it, it turns out that was incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side.I've got it in my head You're not the one who seems to have a personal issue with the OP!but do they have a personal issue it's just words, would these words come out the same in person, are these words being misinterpreted? Does it at the end of the day matter what's done is done it can't be changed, it's a bit like driving down the road in your brand new highly polished car and an 80 year old blue rinser driving a morris minor soft top hesitating at a junction and putting a dent in said pristine car the dents in it, you can't take it back you could get very angry with the blue rinser who has 63 years of driving experience to her name but to what end they'll be back on the road the next day driving at 25 mph........ Speed kills ya know" From reading the thread, it appears to be personal. By continually asking the OP for her opinion and saying she has an opinion, he is making it personal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devil's advocate with myself. Maybe a legally enforced return to morality, decency and even approaching good family values is what we need? Are people too self centred? Do we have too much choice? Do we need more respect? I'd like to think we'd approach this more naturally rather policing human nature but maybe I'm wrong? Thoughts?" morals don't really come into this lifestyle but flexibility and an open mind and a lack of naivety do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks for everyone thoughts, I’ll take them back for our next coffee session to debate some more, happy swinging all hope you have a lovely weekend x x You are still using selective hearing though. You said the peanut analogy was great and yet the person who came up with said that it doesn't apply to your argument at all. When are you going to get it into your head. The OP doesn't have a side. She is the debate setter, we discuss each side.I've got it in my head You're not the one who seems to have a personal issue with the OP!but do they have a personal issue it's just words, would these words come out the same in person, are these words being misinterpreted? Does it at the end of the day matter what's done is done it can't be changed, it's a bit like driving down the road in your brand new highly polished car and an 80 year old blue rinser driving a morris minor soft top hesitating at a junction and putting a dent in said pristine car the dents in it, you can't take it back you could get very angry with the blue rinser who has 63 years of driving experience to her name but to what end they'll be back on the road the next day driving at 25 mph........ Speed kills ya know From reading the thread, it appears to be personal. By continually asking the OP for her opinion and saying she has an opinion, he is making it personal." There's nothing personal. I don't know the woman. I just think it's a silly argument that needs a good dose of sunlight. Her failure to debate the point was a bit annoying so I was probably a bit aggressive in return. Peace and love to Dixa and everyone else, it's only a bit of heated debate, we are all still friends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devil's advocate with myself. Maybe a legally enforced return to morality, decency and even approaching good family values is what we need? Are people too self centred? Do we have too much choice? Do we need more respect? I'd like to think we'd approach this more naturally rather policing human nature but maybe I'm wrong? Thoughts?morals don't really come into this lifestyle but flexibility and an open mind and a lack of naivety do " But we all have feelings and are human too. Deception is not cool...maybe a prison sentence for being a not nice person is the order of the day. A new world order where it's good to be good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devil's advocate with myself. Maybe a legally enforced return to morality, decency and even approaching good family values is what we need? Are people too self centred? Do we have too much choice? Do we need more respect? I'd like to think we'd approach this more naturally rather policing human nature but maybe I'm wrong? Thoughts?morals don't really come into this lifestyle but flexibility and an open mind and a lack of naivety do " I would disagree, just because someone has sex with multiple people, it doesn't mean they are of low morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devil's advocate with myself. Maybe a legally enforced return to morality, decency and even approaching good family values is what we need? Are people too self centred? Do we have too much choice? Do we need more respect? I'd like to think we'd approach this more naturally rather policing human nature but maybe I'm wrong? Thoughts?morals don't really come into this lifestyle but flexibility and an open mind and a lack of naivety do But we all have feelings and are human too. Deception is not cool...maybe a prison sentence for being a not nice person is the order of the day. A new world order where it's good to be good. " Ha hey a prison sentence for married people cheating they'd have to build a million new prisons no I think the way forward is tazoring nipples and nuts they wouldn't do it again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
